Indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors
|Moderator:Marjo (see all)|
|This page is a stub. You may improve it into a full page.|
What established or possible indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors exist? What kind of exposure-response functions have been defined for them?
|Obs||Exposure agent||Response||Response metric||Exposure route||Exposure unit||ERF parameter||ERF||Significance||Description/Reference|
|1||Visible dampness and/or mold or mold odor||Respiratory health effect||Inhalation||yes/no||OR||several, see Note 1||Note 1|
|2||Dampness or mold, minimal||Mental health problems||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||1.39 (1.02-1.89)||Shenassa et al. 2007|
|3||Dampness or mold, moderate||Mental health problems||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||1.44 (1.08-1.92)||Shenassa et al. 2007|
|4||Dampness or mold, extensive||Mental health problems||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||1.34 (0.97-1.85)||Shenassa et al. 2007|
|5||Dampness and/or mold||Mental health problems||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||1.76 (1.17-2.66)||0.0056||Hopton and Hunt 1996|
|6||Dampness and/or mold||Self-assessed health poorer||Note 2|
|7||Living in a low income household||Mental health problems||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||1.61 (1.06-2.44)||0.0231||Hopton and Hunt 1996|
|8||Respondent unemployed||Mental health problems||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||1.55 (0.99-2.42)||0.0483||Hopton and Hunt 1996|
|9||Living in flat instead of house||Morbidity||Morbidity||yes/no||RR||1.57||Fanning 1967|
|10||Floor of living||Psychoneurotic disorder||Incidence||1st vs. ground||RR||1.06||Fanning 1967 (RR calculated from Table 8)|
|11||Floor of living||Psychoneurotic disorder||Incidence||2nd vs. ground||RR||1.74||Fanning 1967 (RR calculated from Table 8)|
|12||Floor of living||Psychoneurotic disorder||Incidence||3rd vs. ground||RR||2.02||Fanning 1967 (RR calculated from Table 8)|
|13||Environmental tobacco smoke||Lung cancer||Morbidity||Inhalation||yes/no||RR||1.21 (1.13-1.30)||Note 7|
|14||Environmental tobacco smoke||Ischaemic heart disease||Mortality||Inhalation||yes/no||RR||1.27 (1.19-1.36)||Note 7|
|15||Environmental tobacco smoke||Asthma||Morbidity||Inhalation||yes/no||RR||1.97 (1.19-3.25)||Age >21; Note 7|
|16||Environmental tobacco smoke||Asthma||Morbidity||Inhalation||yes/no||RR||1.32 (1.24-1.41)||Age <14; Note 7|
|17||Environmental tobacco smoke||Lung infections||Morbidity||Inhalation||yes/no||RR||1.55 (1.42-1.69)||Age <2; Note 7|
|18||Environmental tobacco smoke||Middle ear inflammation||Morbidity||Inhalation||yes/no||RR||1.38 (1.21-1.56)||Age <3; Note 7|
|19||Environmental tobacco smoke||Irritation of eyes and mucosa|
|20||Environmental tobacco smoke||Odour problems||Inhalation|
|21||Environmental tobacco smoke||Comfort of housing|
|22||Environmental tobacco smoke||Chronic infections||Inhalation|
|23||Wood smoke||Respiratory health effect||Inhalation||Note 3, Note 4|
|24||Wood smoke||Irritation of eyes and mucosa|
|25||Wood smoke||Respiratory health effect||Inhalation|
|26||Wood smoke||Odour problems||Inhalation|
|27||Wood smoke||Comfort of housing|
|28||Wood smoke||Chronic infections||Inhalation|
|35||Insufficient air exchange||Headache|
|36||Insufficient air exchange||Tiredness|
|37||Insufficient air exchange||Decreased ability to concentrate|
|38||Insufficient air exchange||Feeling of fug|
|39||Thermal conditions; heat||Tiredness|
|40||Thermal conditions; heat||Decreased ability to concentrate|
|41||Thermal conditions; heat||Increased respiratory symptoms|
|42||Thermal conditions; heat||Feeling of dryness|
|43||Thermal conditions; heat||Comfort of housing|
|44||Thermal comfort (draught or cold)||Mental health problems||Note 2|
|45||Thermal comfort (heat or cold)||Depression||Note 2|
|46||Thermal comfort (heat or cold; general perception of thermal problems)||Self-assessed health poorer||Note 2|
|47||Thermal conditions (cold)||Feeling of draught|
|48||Thermal conditions (cold)||Comfort of housing|
|52||Noise||Comfort of housing|
|53||Proximity to traffic||Mortality|
|54||Radon||Lung cancer||Note 5|
|59||Reduced space (house/flat)||Depression||Note 2|
|60||Reduced space (house/flat)||Mental health problems||Note 2|
|61||Reduced space (house/flat)||Self-assessed health poorer||Note 2|
|62||Access to garden||Depression||Note 2|
|63||Floor level||Mental health problems||Note 2|
|64||Overcrowding||Mental health problems||Note 2|
|65||Overcrowding||Self assessed health poorer||Note 2|
|66||Sensory IAQ||Various health and well-being parameters|
|67||Maternal employment||Maltreatment of children||Prevalence||no/yes||OR||2.82 (1.59-5.00)||Sidebotham et al. 2002|
|68||No. of house moves in previous 5 years||Maltreatment of children||Prevalence||2-3 vs. 0-1||OR||1.32 (0.77-2.27)||Sidebotham et al. 2002|
|69||No. of house moves in previous 5 years||Maltreatment of children||Prevalence||4 or more vs. 0-1||OR||2.81 (1.59-4.96)||Sidebotham et al. 2002|
|70||Overcrowded accomodation||Maltreatment of children||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||2.16 (1.27-3.70)||Sidebotham et al. 2002|
|71||Accomodation||Maltreatment of children||Prevalence||Council vs. owned/mortgarged||OR||7.65 (3.30-17.75)||Sidebotham et al. 2002|
|72||Accomodation||Maltreatment of children||Prevalence||Rented vs. owned/mortgarged||OR||4.47 (1.82-10.98)||Sidebotham et al. 2002|
|73||Social Network Score < 21||Maltreatment of children||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||3.09 (1.84-5.19)||Sidebotham et al. 2002|
|74||Paternal employement||Maltreatment of children||Prevalence||no/yes||OR||2.33 (1.43-3.77)||Sidebotham et al. 2002|
|75||Car use||Maltreatment of children||Prevalence||no/yes||OR||2.33 (1.41-3.83)||Sidebotham et al. 2002|
|76||No. of deprivation indicators||Maltreatment of children||Prevalence||1 vs. 0||OR||9.58 (2.64-34.81)||Note 6; Sidebotham et al. 2002|
|77||No. of deprivation indicators||Maltreatment of children||Prevalence||2 vs. 0||OR||23.44 (6.61-83.15)||Note 6; Sidebotham et al. 2002|
|78||No. of deprivation indicators||Maltreatment of children||Prevalence||3 vs. 0||OR||59.30 (17.52-200.76)||Note 6; Sidebotham et al. 2002|
|79||No. of deprivation indicators||Maltreatment of children||Prevalence||4 vs. 0||OR||111.36 (32.31-383.801)||Note 6; Sidebotham et al. 2002|
|80||House dampness||Problems in energy (according Nottingham Health Profile)||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||2.13||Packer et al. 1994 (OR calculated from Table 8)|
|81||House dampness||Social isolation (according Nottingham Health Profile)||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||2.04||Packer et al. 1994 (OR calculated from Table 8)|
|82||House dampness||Problems in sleep (according Nottingham Health Profile)||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||1.50||Packer et al. 1994 (OR calculated from Table 8)|
|83||House dampness||Problems in emotional reactions (according Nottingham Health Profile)||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||1.27||Packer et al. 1994 (OR calculated from Table 8)|
|84||House dampness||Problems in physical mobility (according Nottingham Health Profile)||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||1.37||Packer et al. 1994 (OR calculated from Table 8)|
|85||House dampness||Perception of pain (according Nottingham Health Profile)||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||1.28||Packer et al. 1994 (OR calculated from Table 8)|
|86||Smoking||Chronic respiratory disease||Prevalence||Inhalation||yes/no||OR||4.36 (2.46-7.74)||0.000||Blackman et al. 2001|
|87||Dampness||Chronic respiratory disease||Prevalence||Inhalation||yes/no||OR||2.10 (1.36-3.50)||0.004||Blackman et al. 2001|
|88||Unwaged household||Chronic respiratory disease||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||1.73 (1.24-2.41)||0.001||Blackman et al. 2001|
|89||Unsafe neighborhood||Mental health problems||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||2.35 (1.41-3.92)||0.001||Blackman et al. 2001|
|90||Draughts||Mental health problems||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||2.28 (1.41-3.69)||0.001||Blackman et al. 2001|
|91||Rehousing||Palpitations/breathlessness||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||0.71||Pettricrew et al. 2009 (OR calculated from Table 5)|
|92||Rehousing||Persistent cough||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||0.89||Pettricrew et al. 2009 (OR calculated from Table 5)|
|93||Rehousing||Painful joints||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||0.70||Pettricrew et al. 2009 (OR calculated from Table 5)|
|94||Rehousing||Faints/dizziness||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||0.68||Pettricrew et al. 2009 (OR calculated from Table 5)|
|95||Rehousing||Difficulty in sleeping||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||0.49||Pettricrew et al. 2009 (OR calculated from Table 5)|
|96||Rehousing||Sinus trouble/catarh||Prevalence||yes/no||OR||0.79||Pettricrew et al. 2009 (OR calculated from Table 5)|
|97||Housing tenure||Poor self-rated health||Prevalence||renter vs. owner||OR||1.48 (1.31-1.68)||Pollack et al. 2004|
- Note 1 ERF of indoor dampness on respiratory health effects
- Note 2 WP6 well-being report (password-protected)
- Note 3 ERF of PM2.5 on mortality in general population
- Note 4 Concentration-response to PM2.5
- Note 5 Health impact of radon in Europe
- Note 6 Indicators of deprivation: overcrowded accommodation, accomodation ownership, paternal employment, car use
- Note 7 ERF of several environmental pollutions
Precision and Plausability of Hopton and Hunt (1996)
- Reporting bias: Perhaps ít´s difficult to use subjective data due to reporting bias. This is because people may answer in different ways or they don´t answer at all. In addition, people experience household conditions differently.
- Possible confounding variables such as sociodemographic and economic variables, e.g. age and income, were controlled.
- Selection bias: The sample is clearly not representative of the general population and therefore the analysis focuses on differences within the sample. Thus it´s worth considering if the results can be generalized to whole population.
Precision and Plausability of Sidebotham et al. (2002)
- Maltreatment is defined and measured as registration for physical injury, neglect, sexual abuse, emotional abuse. That way all maltreatments, which are not registered are not taken into account.
- The measurement of the social class is not too accurate, because no allowance for nonworking mothers and no parental social class allocated for single mothers can be applied.
- The nature of relationship with child maltreatment is complex (confounder, cultural values, etc). That causes problems in finding an association or causality between an exposure factor and maltreatment. Moreover, maltreatment has different definition in different cultural groups.
- The parental income is not measured directly, but car ownership as a proxy indicator and the receipt of welfare payment are used.
- Controlling for social factors was done.
- Large amount of prospectively collected data are used in in the study, which is a clear strength.
- The participation is lower among the maltreated group, which might influence the outcome of the statistical analysis or bias the results of the study.
- The risk of social bias and no way of measuring the effect of such bias. A social bias can be defined as a prejudgement of a specific social group. In this case, it might be that those, who collected the data might have expectations, that parents which lower or higher social background are more prone to maltreat their child and let this expectation influence their interpretation of the results. This is not very likely here, though, because all parameters which were used for the analysis can me measured and there is not much freedome for interpretation.
Precision and Plausability of Packer et al. (1994)
- health problems: possibility of headache, mental problems, emotional reactions, social isolation and pain.
- social factors: unemployment, single parent, lone adult and unemployment with sickness or disability
- lifestyle: consumption of alcohol and smoking
Precision and Plausability of Blackman et al. (2001)
- Bias in respondents answers to realistically evaluate their and family members health
- Some housings that where targets on first survey were demolished during second survey.
- No data from comparison neighbourhood without renewal to back up observed health changes after renewal program.
- Relationship between dampness, draughts and mental health is uncertain, because the mechanism is unknown
- Multivariate analysis using regression model was used to control variables, such as economic, housing, respiratory and mental health related to increase plausability which increases the plausibility of ERF.
Precision and Plausability of D. Fanning (1967)
- The study is quite old. Probably today many other parameters in addition to those used in the article would be measured when conducting this kind of study.
- The study has considered the difference between children and adults.
- The study has not considered the differences between different flats and houses. They have only categories for houses and flats but the differences between houses are not considered. This may cause bias to the study.
Precision and Plausability of Petticrew et al. (2009)
- Data collection at the three occassions in the intervention group before moving, one year after moving and 2 years after moving to the social housing gives strenght to the study in analysing changes in the housing circumstances and in neighbourhood.
- Recruitment into the study was discussed by the landlord to the tenant once they have accepted the housing offer which dosn't gives the RSL direct contact with the participant though this serves as a way of good recruitments but it dose not guarantee the authenticity of the data collected. e.g RSL couldn't supply the number of people who refuse to participate in the study to the SHARP research team.
- Broad range of adult household categories in the intervention group which was used as a base for recruiting the comparism group stenghthen the study. (family households, with children under age of sixteen years, older households where the respondents and adult members of the households were of pensionable age, and adult households with a combination of relationships, including parents with children atleast 16 years of age, people unrelated to one and another and couples )
- Qualitative and quantitative findings were only presented for 1 year(wave 2) in the study which dose not proof if the effects are sustained and probabely if differences in health outcomes occur at two years in the intervention and comparism groups.
- recollection bias may occur during interview if participant in the groups if they can not recall adequately past occurences relating to health, housing and neighbourhood questions after one year and two years of movement to the new house.
- Bias in subsequent analysis can also occur if there is any significant changes in the groups associated with self reported health.
Precision and Plausibility of Pollack et al. (2004)
The study controls some factors which can potentially cause bias in the result, like socioeconomic factors, relation to the neighbours and pollution of the local environment. However, the potential effects of working conditions on the health of the study subjects has not been addressed. In addition, it should be found out whether life style, diet, smoking, and use of alcohol are included it in socioeconomic factors.
Indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors
|Obs||Building||Heating||Ventilation rate||Dampness%||Smoking%||Biomass burning%||Indoor background emissions||In noise areas%||Too hot in summer%||Too cold in winter%||Radon||Description|
|1||Detached houses||District||0.71 (0.3-1.12)||5-16.5||2.35 (1.4-3.4)||15||100 (95-105)||Gens, 2012; Turunen et al. 2010; Haverinen-Shaughnessy, 2012; Assumption based on city´s data; Kurttio 2006|
|2||Detached houses||Electricity||0.71 (0.3-1.12)||5-16.5||2.35 (1.4-3.4)||15||100 (95-105)||Gens, 2012; Turunen et al. 2010; Haverinen-Shaughnessy, 2012; Assumption based on city´s data; Kurttio 2006|
|3||Detached houses||Oil||0.71 (0.3-1.12)||5-16.5||2.35 (1.4-3.4)||15||100 (95-105)||Gens, 2012; Turunen et al. 2010; Haverinen-Shaughnessy, 2012; Assumption based on city´s data; Kurttio 2006|
|4||Detached houses||Wood||0.71 (0.3-1.12)||5-16.5||2.35 (1.4-3.4)||15||100 (95-105)|
|5||Detached houses||Geothermal||0.71 (0.3-1.12)||5-16.5||2.35 (1.4-3.4)||15||100 (95-105)|
|6||Row houses||District||0.71 (0.3-1.12)||5-16.5||2.35 (1.4-3.4)||21||100 (95-105)|
|7||Apartment houses||District||0.71 (0.3-1.12)||5-16.5||2.35 (1.4-3.4)||30||100 (95-105)|
|11||Health and social sector||District||0||Assumption|
|14||Educational||District||24||0||Haverinen-Shaughnessy et al. 2012; Assumption|
Gens 2012 
Haverinen-Shaughnessy 2010 
Haverinen-Shaughnessy et al. 2012 
Turunen et al. 2010